Pages

Thursday, June 25, 2009

In Signature in the Cell, Dr. Stephen Meyer examines how the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin?This talk explains the thesis of this new book.

25
comments
:

I can never understand how one second I am hearing from a Christian about creation and a 6,000 year old universe - then the next moment, from another Christian, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, evolution works - but needed God to kick it off.

Some believe in young earth. That doesn't rule out ID. Some believe in old earth. That doesn't rule out ID. So ID is not necessarily old or young oriented. ID supporters have been both theists and non-theists (such as atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton). Other atheists like Anthony Flew have found ID arguments strong enough to change their views.

There are evidential and theological reasons on both sides of the age-of-the-earth debate. I post things from various points of view. That way people can make up their own minds. Me posting both views points to the fact that both support a universe created by God - which is the bottom line.

In this case, the age of the earth is not the issue. Let's not turn this post into a debate over the age of the earth - that would distract from the focal point of this post, which is the original of information in the cell.

I will be brief since I shouldn’t (as you say) take the debate onto the age of the Earth.

Let’s just focus on evolution, which I thought ID agreed with up to the point of “irreducible complexity”(which is a bit of a god of the gaps argument as you should know)

Some believe in young earth. That doesn't rule out ID.

Actually, I thought that did.

At least that is what they argue when they try and get their nonsense into the science class – that ID agrees with the old universe and all the findings of science, they just feel they can answer the question ‘better’ with “God did it” right at the complex bit (which for science is the interesting bits)

Of course, ID could have just said that the ‘designer’ created the universe just last week. That’s the problem with ID, they make untestable claims (hence not science)

So I think you are wrong on this point.

ID supporters have been both theists and non-theists (such as atheist philosopher of science Bradley Monton).

I assume when you say non-theist – you don’t mean the likes of me, but rather a deist?

Other atheists like Anthony Flew have found ID arguments strong enough to change their views.

… to become a deist – I know.

There are evidential and theological reasons on both sides of the age-of-the-earth debate.

Not sure of the evidence for the young Earth, but lets not go down that path if you don’t want. What little I have heard contradicts with itself and reality.

I post things from various points of view. That way people can make up their own minds.

Oh, I agree with that. 100%. Glad you do, get people talking.

Me posting both views points to the fact that both support a universe created by God - which is the bottom line.

But they hold contradictory views about the physical world. Doesn’t that trouble you?

that would distract from the focal point of this post, which is the original of information in the cell.

Ah, right yes – well, did I tell you I have a physics with astrophysics degree, what do I know about biology? :-)

evolution, which I thought ID agreed with up to the point of “irreducible complexity”These all depend on definition of terms before going into this. But I don't plan to go into this. I would only suggest that there are diverse views all over the map on these issues - which is why it is beyond the scope of this post (and my time constraints to discuss!)

As for young earth views and the ID views, young earth doesn't rule out ID, but some IDers might rule out young earth.

When I say non-theist in this case, I mean atheist. Bradley Monton is an atheist/agnostic. Flew was an atheist, now a deist. But deism is merely a brand of theism. Theism is a broader category which includes deism.

But they hold contradictory views about the physical world. Doesn’t that trouble you?They disagree on the age of the earth, which no one knows the exact age of. So that does not trouble me that they don't agree on that point. I agree with their ultimate conclusions: THAT God created. When figuring out the HOW God created, those are open for differing views without troubling me.

Ah, right yes – well, did I tell you I have a physics with astrophysics degree, what do I know about biology? :-)Then you might like this site. Or not! : )

Now let's narrow the discussion back to topic: the origin of information in the cell. I'm not going to go into any more age of the earth stuff here. You can explore that link for more age of the earth stuff.

I happen to believe in a young earth and am a proponent of ID. The arguments for an old earth are unconvincing to me and there are scientific arguments for a young earth. For instance, fossil formation is better explained by a massive rapidly forming flood than an old earth. Left to time, most bones discintigrate.

Dear Brian,I would say in another way. We can “simply” agree with the faith that the universe has been created by God and "The Bible" is the highest moral and ethic book, but please not a scientific book. So, we can look a little more relaxed at the scientific work, sure that God is always at work in any step (in simplified form is what the catholic doctrine says about science and religion). So judging the Meyer’s work, we can focus only in what is good scientific work based on serious research and studies and what is only "philosophical" speculation. In this way we can rule out ID from the scientific contest, and then also from the religious one as completely irrelevant.

However, may I suggest that you have asserted these things without giving any reasons... or, "no proves, no evidences." You are just saying he is unscientific because of the Bible... or something like that... but he doesn't bring up the Bible. And you have not shown me how his processes or his premises are false.

Thanks for commenting though. I get the impression that you just don't like ID. That's OK. But if you are going to criticize someone's position, I would appreciate you showing where the errors are actually happening in his arguments.

From a religious point of view ID is irrelevant, I would add that it can be consider a little offensive for a true faith. From a scientific point of view ID is simply not science. The only argument of Mayer is that he doesn't believe that a natural process can generate the DNA code. But he fails to give a conclusive demonstration of this. Or you have find one?

My opinion (from the religious point of view), is that ID is not required for me to be a Christian. However, if I see scientific evidence (whether it be Big Bang cosmology or apparent design) these would be confirming support (not proof) that my beliefs are true.

You say that "ID" is not science. Then I would ask if the SETI program is science. Is archeology science? Is forensics science? These all infer intelligent causes based upon evidence that is non-repeatedable.

Why don't we drop the "loaded" term of "ID" and simply ask if it is scientific to infer intelligence from any sort of data? What data can we infer intelligence from? Leave God and the Bible out of it. If I find machinery on Mars, could I infer an intelligent cause?

It seems to me that what Meyer is saying is that we have a number of choices to pick form when we are looking for causes: non-intelligence (chance), necessity, or intelligence. When considering information (especially information that is coded, requires decoding, is billions of specific characters long, carries out complex functions, etc.) it would be comparable to computer code (as Gates says, it is like computer code, only vastly more complex). Is the BEST explanation chance, necessity or design? Well, Meyer is saying that if you don't rule out design a priori, then chance is the best candidate. I don't see how inference to the best explanation is unscientific in this example of Meyer's process.

That being said, I am not going to spend too much more time in this discussion, as they get too time-consuming and eat into other important commitments. However, I hope that perhaps sheds some light on what I think about Meyer's approach.

Maybe it would be good for both of us to pick up his book and read it, eh? : )

I kinda listened to the podcast – I fell asleep on the train, but I don’t think I missed anything important.

Most of the lecture/talk was throwing large and stupid numbers around to argue against strawmen – good luck to him I say, he convinces himself I guess.

His main claim though seems to be that ‘we’ need intelligence to get complex things.

Well, this if this is true – the obvious question is ‘who designed the designer?’

Meyer’s ‘science’ falls there, since he requires special pleading to say that “well, the special case of the designer obviously doesn’t need a designed. His complexity can just come out of thin air”

“GAME OVER”

You wrote:-

“You say that "ID" is not science.”

I would, can you tell me what predictions it has made and how they can be falsified?

Then I would ask if the SETI program is science.

Only if looking for a needle in a haystack could be called science.

And remember, the intelligence it is looking for are natural living ones – we will compare them with own technology and ourselves. (No false analogy here which is more than I can say for the argument from design)

Is archeology science?

You might as well ask is history science.

My reply would be the same – they use the scientific method the best they can and applied it to their own field.

Their conclusions are tentative and can be changed based on new evidence (they can be falsified)

Time for a quote…“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”Ernest RutherfordNoble prize winner

I use to love telling that to chemists and biologists :-)

Is forensics science?

As above.

These all infer intelligent causes based upon evidence that is non-repeatedable.”

Ignoring SETI for a moment, since they have found nothing

The other ‘sciences’ use the knowledge of humans and their behaviour today.

Hardly a big jump to think that the people in the photographs taken during the American civil war could talk and think like we do I am sure you would agree.

And I disagree also that the experiments are non-repeatable.

If you look at the broken pottery in the ground – you don’t think, I wonder how that broke?

We have seen pots, and if we want to test how they break today we can. The analogies of today seem valid to be applied to 1,000 years ago.

Now, this is NOT true when it comes to the argument of design – just ask David Hume

Evolution requires a long time, more than 6,000 years so how to you combined the two?

The arguments for an old earth are unconvincing to me

Then please don't get me wrong, I suspect you just don’t understand them, we can explore this if you like.

... and there are scientific arguments for a young earth.

Can you please provide some falsifiable claims from a YEC that are consistent with ALL observations that also offer predictions?

I’ve not heard any, but I would love to read some.

For instance, fossil formation is better explained by a massive rapidly forming flood than an old earth. Left to time, most bones discintigrate.

Well, I’m no fossil expect but the first thing I would point out is the shape and development of the bones show a gradual change over time (evolution). The less developed fossils are older than the young. How do you explain that?

Then there is the geology evidence and, dare I say it, the radioactive dating of the fossil layers that show a far older fossil.

So, where my limited knowledge stops is on the actual formation of the fossil, I would have to look that up – but already I have provided enough to challenge your idea of just 6,000 years.

Also, let’s not forget, you also have to explain the red shift of distant galaxies, the cosmic background radiation and the size of the universe.

When SN1987 (Supernova 1987) when off in a local galaxy – it took time for it to reach us, from memory over 100,000 years, that is the distance to the local galaxy with light travelling at a constant speed.

How does that fit in with your YEC ideas?

Is the galaxy not over 100,000 light years away, or does the speed of light change? You tell me how you understand this issue.

That's funny, last time I checked, that was still a theory. And the thing that the founder of the theory said had to be in agreement with the theory (the fossil record) has proven anything but the theory.

There are some IDers who believe in evolution and many who do not. I am one who does not.

Then please don't get me wrong, I suspect you just don’t understand them, we can explore this if you like.

If you're comfortable with a naturalistic view of the universe you have fun with that. You happen to be in a very small minority.

Can you please provide some falsifiable claims from a YEC that are consistent with ALL observations that also offer predictions?

I’ve not heard any, but I would love to read some.

Are you saying that evolution and other naturalistic explanations are not falsifiable? Most scientists would say this precludes them for being scientific, because for something to be scientific there must be a way to falsify it. Of course we all know that naturalisitic explanations are not forgone conclusions, no matter how much you want them to be.

One theory I have run across recently is the Hydroplate theory. It's pretty interesting.

But already I have provided enough to challenge your idea of just 6,000 years

Actually you provided quickly Googled, unsubstantiated information that you seem to expect me to take at face value simply because you say so. See, proponents of ANY theory ever have explanations for challenges that come up against their theory.

And I never said the earth was 6,000 years old, I don't know exactly how old it is. I don't think it's 6 billion, however.

The difference between us is who we have decided to place our faith in. You have decided that men in white lab coats are trustworthy enough to place your faith in. You have faith that they will not make mistakes in their calculations. You have decided that, even though you've never seen most of these scientists, they actually exist and have come up with scientific explanations that satisfy your naturalistic view of life. But that is the problem most people have with God, they can't see him...anyway...

I have decided to place my faith in the God of the universe who makes Himself known through nature. He alone explains why there is something instead of nothing. Please note that this doesn't make me anti-intellectual. I have listened to both sides of the debate. I think much of what science discovers is reliable, and I think God intended it that way. Our whole ability to be able to discover new galaxies and view how distant starlight acts when it comes in contact with our own star's gravity is part of the amazing design God intended. I'm sure you've heard the odds.

Question, are you letting an a priori assumption that there absolutely cannot be a God interfere with your conclusions? That isn't good science.

You seem to be confused and mixing up observation with the explanation..

The theory of the evolution is, well, a theory (the clue is in the name).

It tries to explain the fact of evolution.

Gravity is a fact, the theory of gravity tries to model and explain that – and it has more challenges from real scientists that the theory of evolution.

Funny thing is though, the ID-ist jumps up and down about evolution and not gravity.

Can you explain this mystery to me?

If you're comfortable with a naturalistic view of the universe you have fun with that. You happen to be in a very small minority.

I am comfortable, so comfortable in fact that I am happy to be proven wrong.

Can I assume you are like me and agree that the natural exists?

I assume we can agree on that… so then, how do you go about proving the supernatural? Better yet, how would you go about falsifying the claims of the supernatural so you can ensure you are not mistaken?

As for minority... well, join the club :-)

You see you are also in a minority as well. A very small minority of Christians believe in a Young Earth (just ask the Catholics) and Christianity itself is in a minority when it comes to worldviews. More people do NOT believe in Jesus as the Son of God than do. And as for those that claim a belief in Jesus, they don’t seem to agree on much.

So what was your point again?

Are you saying that evolution and other naturalistic explanations are not falsifiable?

Where did you pull this nonsense out? I believe in the scientific method – this requires both measurement and falsifiable predictions - upon other things.

So can you please answer my original question and not change it.

I will repeat:“Can you please provide some falsifiable claims from a YEC that are consistent with ALL observations that also offer predictions?”

There, that is simple enough question wasn’t it?

Most scientists would say this precludes them for being scientific, because for something to be scientific there must be a way to falsify it.

Care to mention any names? Shall we do a count of those who work in the scientific community and those that preach from the pulpit? :-)

One theory I have run across recently is the Hydroplate theory. It's pretty interesting.

Never heard of it.

OK, so do you believe in this theory? Would it change your view on the Young Earth if I shown it to be flawed?

Erm… just had a quick look – this says nothing about the young Earth, just the global flood claim. So why did you present this again?

I’m happy to discuss the global flood if you like, but shall we first close our little discussion on the young Earth first.

After all, you have offered nothing in reply to the red shift of distant galaxies, the cosmic background radiation, or well, anything that I said.

I will give you a little hint about me, my background is in astronomy just in case you are wondering why I like to talk about the issues you have with space

You have decided that, even though you've never seen most of these scientists

Why do I need to meet most of the scientists? Most of them are dead for a start.

they actually exist and have come up with scientific explanations that satisfy your naturalistic view of life.

Here is the important bit… they explain what has been observed. They test their ideas, and fine-tune them – improving the ideas over time.

But that is the problem most people have with God, they can't see him...anyway...

That’s not my problem – that’s yours.

If I cannot see something, cannot touch it, smell it etc. If I can make no observation to prove that something exists, how can I tell the difference between something not existing, and existing? Can you help me out on that one?

However, it gets worst for you… you believe in the Christian God, one that interacts with the universe. We should be able to see His interactions. Care to share any interactions you think that we could test?

I have decided to place my faith in the God of the universe who makes Himself known through nature.

How do you know it isn’t just nature?

He alone explains why there is something instead of nothing.

Well, actually no – He doesn’t.

Why is there a God rather than no God? What was there before God, where did God come from?

Why did God make the universe, rather than no universe?

Why the Christian God, and not the deistic god?

Also, if you have nothing, isn’t it something?

I think much of what science discovers is reliable

Excellent – which bits of science discoveries do you think are reliable?

Those which you think are unreliable, why do you think that? Have you anything outside of the bible to think why it is wrong?

and I think God intended it that way.

You can think that, but can you provide any evidence or reason why someone like me should think it also?

Our whole ability to be able to discover new galaxies and view how distant starlight acts when it comes in contact with our own star's gravity is part of the amazing design God intended.

That’s an interesting statement you made… “how distant starlight acts when it comes in contact with our own star's gravity”

Can you expand on this comment further.

You are not suggesting that the speed of light in a vacuum isn’t a constant are you? Just asking, because I’ve heard some YEC say this to me just the other day.

I'm sure you've heard the odds.

Actually I’ve never heard the odds for God, so I have nothing to compare these amazing numbers to.

Question, are you letting an a priori assumption that there absolutely cannot be a God interfere with your conclusions? That isn't good science.

Answer: No

I would have no problem if God decided to prove His existence to me and the rest of the world tomorrow if He wished it. I can think of many an observation that would do it for me.

The only question I keep asking myself is why does God hide from me IF He exists?

Gravity is a fact, the theory of gravity tries to model and explain that – and it has more challenges from real scientists that the theory of evolution.

Funny thing is though, the ID-ist jumps up and down about evolution and not gravity.

That's why it's called the Law of gravity. I know in recent years evolutionists have embarked on the tough task of redefining all their terms, but let's keep it simple, please.

Gravity is observable. You throw something up, it comes down. I can stare at a population for a lifetime and not observe one species becoming a different species. Macro evolution is based on assumptions.

I assume we can agree on that… so then, how do you go about proving the supernatural? Better yet, how would you go about falsifying the claims of the supernatural so you can ensure you are not mistaken?

I could cite all of the ontological, cosmological, and teleological evidence that points to God's existence, but I'm sure you've heard it. I think just looking outside is proof enough, but the atheist is given the freedom to harden their heart to it all. You believe in things that aren't subjected to the scientific method all the time. I think it's more than reasonable to believe in God.

Where did you pull this nonsense out? I believe in the scientific method – this requires both measurement and falsifiable predictions - upon other things.

You're right, I misread what you wrote. I provided the Hydroplate theory. I'm not sure if I believe it or not. I just heard about it. However, as I have stated, you can provide "reasons" it is not tenable but I could provide counter-reasons. Simply because you say something and believe something doesn't mean it's true. There is the possibility you are wrong or have been lied to.

Erm… just had a quick look – this says nothing about the young Earth, just the global flood claim. So why did you present this again?

It's tied in to the young earth view. I'll link to the video that briefly explains the theory. Here

After all, you have offered nothing in reply to the red shift of distant galaxies, the cosmic background radiation, or well, anything that I said.

I never claimed to be an astronomer, physicist, or Einstein. One doesn't have to be to understand some philosophical and scientific claims. If you think you do, you run into the argument from authority fallacy (as you already have used a few times).

I don’t expect you to accept them at face value – why not go to university for 4 years like me and learn it yourself. You may find it interesting, I know I did.

I'm actually in the middle of that. I'm getting a degree in Computer Science, but will go from there to seminary to get a degree in theology.

So you say you don’t know how old the Earth is, but you know it is young?

A bit of a contradiction I think going on there, or are you changing your mind.

I'm not sure how that's a contradiction. Just because I said I don't know exactly how old the earth is? I don't think anyone has the exact number.

FYI - Science says the Earth is 4.6 billion years (from the top of my head) and the universe to be 13.7 billion years.

ScienTISTS say that. Science can't say anything. Science isn't a thing, it's a concept. There are other scietists who would debate that, I'm sure. I've heard from 6,000 - 6 billion years old from different guys with Phd's.

If you disagree, then please provide your estimates on the age – plus more importantly, how you came to such an age.

I used to be along the lines of a Hugh Ross old earth creationist, but some theological issues caused me to change my mind. I'd say the earth is probably 6,000 - 10,000 years old, but I'm not emotionally attached to that range of numbers.

I try and keep my faith/trust to a minimum.

No you don't, you have faith every day. I'd be happy to explain if you like.

I went to university and learnt for myself.

Where you had faith that what the teachers with goofy glasses and your textbooks said were true.

if I could prove my professors wrong, I would have.

But you believed them because you had faith that they were telling the truth, and that the professor that taught them told the truth, etc etc.

If mistakes are made, science points them out

Again, science is not a thing so it can't point anything out. I'd like to make an observation, it seems as though you hold science to be some sort of infallible force. Would it be accurate to say science is your god?

So, how do you prove your religion wrong?

How do you prove your priest is wrong?

You compare them to the authoritative word of God aka the Bible.

Why do I need to meet most of the scientists? Most of them are dead for a start.

Then how can you know they actually existed?

Here is the important bit… they explain what has been observed. They test their ideas, and fine-tune them – improving the ideas over time.

How do you know they're actually right unless you reenact each and every one of their experiments to make sure? Furthermore, how do you know they actually performed these experiments? And they’re changing their minds all the time? You’re comfortable with that? That means what you believed ten years ago you were wrong about. Isn’t there a chance you’re wrong about God?

If I can make no observation to prove that something exists, how can I tell the difference between something not existing, and existing? Can you help me out on that one?

You could read about God in the Bible, just like you read about all these experiments we hope really actually took place in your textbooks.

John 1:18 actually deals with this. "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Jesus],who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (NIV).

We can know what God is like because Jesus, the God-man, came and showed us what He is like.

How do you know it isn’t just nature?

How do you know it is just nature?

Why is there a God rather than no God? What was there before God, where did God come from?

God is self-existent. He is outside of time and space. If He were inside time and space I'd have the same question. In Colossians 1:17 Paul gives us a quick explanation, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" (NKJV).

Also, if you have nothing, isn’t it something?

That's a bit of a contradiction, don't you think?

You are not suggesting that the speed of light in a vacuum isn’t a constant are you? Just asking, because I’ve heard some YEC say this to me just the other day.

I'm not sure. It is assume that it is, but that is an assumption. There are scientists who debate this.

Actually I’ve never heard the odds for God, so I have nothing to compare these amazing numbers to.

I'm talking about the odds that our habitible planet would actually contain all the elements that make sentient life possible, and would be in a part of the galaxy that makes interstellar discoveries possible.

I won’t have time to go point by point (which is my preferred method) and if I did my reply would be far too long

Firstly, there isn’t a law of gravity – there is something called Newton’s laws of gravity I suppose, but Einstein has already shown how and where these fail, so they cannot be really laws.

Laws of what science talked about when they didn’t understand induction was flawed. Popper I think it was that pointed that out, so we cannot blame Newton.

My point is that all professional physicists today agree – the best gravitational theory for gravity (Einstein’s theory) is wrong (or at least incomplete, just like Newton’s laws were)

You don’t have a similar agreement with the theory of evolution.

Of course, you get some who disagree, hardly any of these actually work in the field of biological evolution (have you noticed that?) – and most importantly, they have not proven the theory of evolution wrong.

It is well know where the theory of gravity fails – hence my point I feel is a valid one.

Now your point about “staring at a population for a lifetime” and not observe one species become another – well, since the theory of evolution clearly states that it takes many thousands of generations for this to happen, why are you surprised that you cannot see it in one lifetime?

Have you ever observed an acorn grow into a 200-year-old Oak tree? Yet I assume you believe this happens, why?

You mentioned ‘Macro evolution’, does this mean you accept micro evolution?

Could you please explain the difference, the only difference I see is time…

As for looking for ‘outside proof’ for God – why is that unreasonable?

Shouldn’t your God want to show me proof for His existence?

After all, I find it difficult to deny gravity – but I still cannot explain it 100%. Having evidence for God’s evidence will still allows me (and others) the choice to freely choose whether to love Jesus or not – so I don’t understand why your God is hidden to me.

Just my observation of course.

Now – onto astronomy.

I don’t really expect you to understand or even know about all the evidence for the Big Bang and a 13.7 billion year old universe.

However, since it is this that you reject – surely you should have an understanding on what you are rejecting and able to say why?

I reject God, and I am more than happy to explain why I do so.

Sorry if you feel I am getting close to the “argument from authority fallacy” but I don’t mean to, and since I freely admit I could be wrong and have asked for you to challenge me – I am not sure if I have.

However, I apologise all the same.

I also apologise for saying that you made a contradiction – last night I mentioned my statement to the wife and she called me an idiot.

I was wrong.

However, I do find it interesting that you feel you can reject the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth and universe without understanding it.

I am happy to explain what I understand about – then you can think about it, tell me where I am wrong, and we will both be happy

[quote]You say that "ID" is not science. Then I would ask if the SETI program is science. Is archeology science? Is forensics science? These all infer intelligent causes based upon evidence that is non-repeatedable.[end quote]

Only ID claims that God exists where we haven't found answers yet. That's a major distinction. If we used that method in forensics in criminal cases, we'd end up calling God the greatest perpetrator in the world with all the unsolved cases -- and wouldn't that reduce our prison burden?

Archaeologists generally do repeatable tests. For one famous example, they knap flints, to see whether the breaks in the spearhead-shaped stone they find are made by knapping or by natural, non-human processes. The only thing that would be non-repeatable in SETI's search would be the actual transmission of a radio signal with a coherent pattern in it -- and non-repeatable results are written off as natural, not from intelligent sources.

I think there is a lot more to understand about science than the one-liners from the Discovery Institute let on.

Only ID claims that God exists where we haven't found answers yet. That's a major distinction.

Here is where the strawman enters. The only claim here is that some features of natural systems (digital information in the DNA code, for example) are better explained as the result of intelligence rather than random, unguided processes. ID does cannot make the jump you say it does.

And I think the point has been missed about archeology, forensics, etc. The point I am making here is simply that these sorts of sciences specifically detect the presence of an intelligent agent. SETI (whether you think it is rubbish or not) would not be possible if they did not think that design could be detected.

I can totally understand if you don't like the conclusions (or implications) of design detection. However, you have yet to show that the processes they are using are not scientific processes.

The question comes back to focusing on the premise of the book: what is the best explanation for the origin of the information code in the DNA molecule?

The only claim here is that some features of natural systems (digital information in the DNA code, for example) are better explained as the result of intelligence rather than random, unguided processes..

Then ID stops asking questions (such as where did this ‘super’ intelligence come from) and starts to become a religion :-)

So in trying to answer a question, ID creates an even larger question (is that begging the question?)

It’s answer, BTW, is unfalsifiable (unless you can provide me a test to disprove this intelligent designer)

It is simple. Make a claim, make a predication, state what test would falsify it - perform test.

ID is big on claims, but after that it stops...

Therefore… NOT SCIENCE!!! :-)

ID does cannot make the jump you say it does

Erm… it is there in it’s title – Intelligent designer – A god by any other name.

Playing with words does not change the facts

And I think the point has been missed about archeology, forensics, etc. The point I am making here is simply that these sorts of sciences specifically detect the presence of an intelligent agent.

Would that intelligence be detected by analogy?

For man made objects this is fine – the analogy works. Man makes things today, so he could make things 1,000 years ago.

Where is the problem is that?

Now, do I need to spell out the false analogy when manmade objects are used as an analogy for gods?

SETI (whether you think it is rubbish or not) would not be possible if they did not think that design could be detected.

Here’s a question for you… if you truly believe everything in nature is designed (by god or ID), how would you be able to recognise something that wasn’t.